Friday, March 4, 2016

Addressing the attacks on firearms protection and possession.

There has been a Leftist saying for awhile, that if you live someplace where you need a firearm, you should move.
Well first off, this is an acknowledgement that some people will indeed need a firearm.
It fails to notice the main point of possessing a firearm for defense, that is if indeed you need it, you need it RIGHT NOW!
IF you have a bad guy break into your house, or try to shake you down in a parking lot, its not like you can say "You know what, I have had it, we are out of here' At that moment, you are committed.
The bulk of crime in the US happens in poverty areas, those who live there probably do not want to be stuck in the hellish environment they are stuck in. It is not as if a poor person can simply move, to where? Jobs are in short supply in America, and it is not as if someone living on their own making just over minimum wage can save enough money to go anywhere.
Regardless, those people are stuck there, and deserve the right to defend themselves, if all good people leave, then what is left?
Here are a couple of examples of people who had to defend themselves while living in only what I would consider hell.
My heart truly goes out to this woman, who has already survived far to much at such a young age. Embedding is disabled for this video.


Argument "A firearm is meant to kill" Well not necessarily, I am fairly certain the first club was probably used to bash in another cavemans skull, however it would end up being used for many other things. Just as that first club was used in death, it would also be used to beat weeds, bring in food and defense.
I have many firearms, some I purchased for defense, but most I ended up buying for punching holes in paper, just as the vast, vast majority of firearms owners do. Competitive shooting is becoming extremely popular in the US, people who purchase those firearms, are not generally purchasing them simply to kill.

The next thing they like to do, is degrade the firearms owner. Hunters are Elmer Fudds, target shooters Wyatte Earp, self defense people paranoid low IQ trailer trash morons, no Compassion for the poor, and last we have the collector, who are nothing more than paranoid nutjobs waiting for the end of the world.
All are annoying to be honest and again, rarely ever true, let us put this all into perspective

Remember, there are around 90 million firearms owners in the US, however just under 14 million will go hunting each year who are over the age of 16. That means without a doubt the US hunters alone are the worlds largest Army! Absolutely amazing to be honest. So if we put this into perspective we realize the other 76 million are either just collectors, Target shooters or own for self defense, in reality probably a combination of all things, proving the Firearm is only a tool, I mean lets think about it, if 90 million firearms owners were as irresponsible and evil as the left would have you believe, they would have easily taken over the country and killed every living thing including each other by now.

There are some bad apples of course, however I have yet to see any regulation which would address this problem which is actually fairly simple to solve in all reality, my thoughts on how to stop mass shootings here.

Argument, "High capacity Magazines would reduce casualties" Well lets think about this here, the goal of this is not even to stop mass shootings, but to mitigate them, again not true in the slightest. Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded 32 people using a bolt action hunting rifle while perched atop a clock tower in 1966.

The Beltway Snipers quit literally terrorized the east coast for months, killing 17, while they used an Ar-15, that weapon could have been a single shot rifle. Remember, intent is the scariest thing of all this.
There have been several school shootings where non semi auto firearms were used, I would like to see mass shootings stop altogether, and I think we can stop them as I noted above.
Very good video addressing high capacity magazines.

Argument, women cannot defend themselves or will only have the gun used against them. Now this one really, really is disturbing, talk about misogyny. Women are very capable of defending themselves, not only has it happened in real world defensive situations, women have served very honorably with women now even being accepted into the Elite US Army Rangers.
Women are also the fastest growing segment into the competitive shooting sector, and are doing amazingly well.

Argument, firearms should not be allowed where alcohol is consumed. You know what, if you want to say you should not be allowed to be intoxicated while carrying a firearm, that would be fine, however again, the left attempts to hyperbole this and make it seem like all people in an establishment which has alcohol are there to get plowed, not at all. It is ridiculous that I should hvae to take off and leave my firearm which I am legally licensed to carry in my vehicle when I stop someplace to eat. Further what if something happens? Well let me present someone who lived through such a travesty in this exact situation.

Argument, "why do you need a firearm to defend yourself, are you not tough enough?" Absurd, so everyone should have to be a master in Martial Arts? As someone who is now in my fourties and having had my fair share of scraps, I have zero desire to go fisticuffs with some ass stain who broke into my house or threatened my or families well being in public. Street confrontations can be a dice roll, and while I encourage people to learn self defense, the reality is a firearm is a far, more realistic alternative, especially considering not all people are physically fit or physically able to defend themselves.

Argument" The Second Amendment was never meant for assault rifles" This is actually correct. The Second Amendment was never written for assault rifles, it was written with the term "Arms" which infers all manner of weapons. The founding fathers were actually very suspicious of a standing army and preferred the Idea of a small regular army with a Militia for back up, the greatest example of the use of private arms for defense of the country would be in the war of 1812, where big guns were used from those of private citizens, I mean cannon and even armed merchant ships.
Now primarily the Second Amendment as stated in modern times generally refers to the common citizen, so should they indeed have an assault rifle? Sure beyond what I stated above, the Musket at the time of the Revolutionary war was a cutting edge weapon of amazing devastation at the time, the assault rifle is without a doubt the modern equivalent of the brown bess musket capable of the then terrifying 4 rounds per minute.

Argument "Teenagers are not mentally capable of handling a firearm" Again, the left would have us believe that the typical teen around a firearm is a disaster waiting to happen, absolute nonsense. Probably for myself growing up in an area where pretty much every single "Kid" I knew had access to a firearm, it is easier for me to understand the nonsense of this argument. Teens do better when giving more responsibility, not less.
I would also argue that competitive shooting for kids get them an outlet, which also teaches them respect, firearms safety and a good demonstration of what a firearm is truly capable of. I would also like to point out that if a kid was focused on shooting competitively, they would have less time for trouble, and less money to spend on booze, alcohol drugs or other forms which could get them into trouble.

Can they defend themselves? Of course, but let us hope they will not have to, this is why they should be prepped and allowed access to where firearms are stored.

Argument "Firearms do not belong in schools" I would say that firearms safety should be taught in schools. In the event someone comes across a firearm they should know safe handling. Kids who are not exposed to firearms outside of schools will not have a understanding of what to do.
It also is to note that at one time, target shooting was allowed in schools. Someone who has ill intent will not give a crap, nor have they
thus far if a school is "firearms free" they target schools because they know it is easy pickings as those people are cowards.

Argument "Anyone can purchase a firearm" This is a Blatant lie, most of the checks the Democrats have been pushing for are already in place. In order for anyone to purchase a new firearm they must pass a Federal Background check. Anyone having a history of mental illness, felony, or convicted of drug use may not possess a firearm.

Private sales are different, however some states require one to register the used purchase of a firearm or to have a background check when doing so, I am for this, however I realize that it will do nothing to stop illegal purchases. Keep in mind that firearms are for the most part forbidden in France yet last year we saw a tragic shooting take place from radical fundamentalists, nothing I repeat no amount of control measures against the common man will prevent this.
It also is nonsense that there is a firearms loophole, that is completely incorrect, anyone again selling new firearms at a gun show must pass a background check. Again private sales are a bit different and varies state by state. Will a bad guy go to a firearms show to purchase a gun without a check? Possible but unlikely, prices at gun shows are usually bloated, those people are looking for cheap firearms with no recognition which they would get off the street where the weapons are usually stolen.

Argument "The NRA is a radical group" Absolute nonsense, while I do not agree with all the NRA does, or has done in the past it is the foremostorganization for teaching firearms safety for adults. It also is the primary organization for providing competitive shooting, which is what it originally was founded for, and later was dragged into the defending firearms rights decades ago. The NRA is far from perfect, but then again so is the ACLU which I also support.

Argument "Firearms Manufacturers should be held liable" Really? So should automobile manufacturers be held liable when their car is used to run someone down, or used as a getaway vehicle? What about knife manufacturers? Come on people, this is ridiculous. This however is an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry, disgusting.

In the end it is important to remember that shortsightedness gets one no where. While the left certainly wants to restrict firearms ownership and in the end, completely eliminate it, they suffer from their own delusions as in another voice, they are concerned with a current Fascist Presidential candidate who may be in office soon. History shows us what could happen in such a situation, and I am willing to bet that those same people would be clamoring to defend themselves in the event the worst nightmare became a reality.
I seriously doubt we will have this problem with a Fascist Candidate as America has enough checks and balances, however it has happened in the past. Here is one many people do not think about.
In reality there should, and are limitations to how and what weapons we own, and who should have access, I am all for responsible firearms ownership, training, storage and back ground checks.

Balance people, why does it not exist?

1 comment:

  1. Nice one. The major reason for the criticism is that because of guns and human ignorance and carelessness most of the times hazards happen, and people die or gets injured. You people can have guns or get proper training but the most important thing is that you must know how and when to use things properly without harming others.